Bridging the Accountability Gap: Structural and Doctrinal Failures of International Criminal Law in Protracted Conflicts – A Comparative Legal Analysis of Syria and Sudan

Abstract

This article critically assesses the persistent inability of international criminal law (ICL) mechanisms to ensure accountability in protracted atrocity contexts, focusing on Syria and Sudan as emblematic case studies. It argues that jurisdictional fragmentation, Security Council paralysis, and an enduring enforcement deficit have undermined the international community’s response to mass crimes. Despite the symbolic weight of ICC indictments and the proliferation of investigative mechanisms, meaningful prosecutions remain elusive. Drawing on recent legal developments, doctrinal analysis, and comparative insights, the paper demonstrates how structural design flaws—rather than mere political obstruction—lie at the heart of ICL’s ineffectiveness. The analysis integrates theoretical perspectives from critical legal studies and Third World Approaches to International Law (TWAIL), situating accountability gaps within global power asymmetries. The paper concludes by offering a set of normative and institutional reforms, including enhanced universal jurisdiction, rethinking the Security Council veto, and establishing conflict-responsive hybrid justice mechanisms. These proposals seek to move ICL from symbolic to substantive justice.